Paul, that was exactly my point. A slide rule still does what it did 20 years ago. It is just that we can do it better now. > > In terms of the Levy-Perelman discussion, if the job done by the > two commodities is exactly the same (e.g., simply counting things up > or doing the exact same calculation when comparing a slide rule to a > calculator), then it is clearly the unit value (value per unit of use > value) that has changed. My guess is though, that that there are a > lot more examples where the character of the use value changes along > with changes in the value of the commodity that provides that use > value. For example, a calculator can do things that you just can't > do with a slide rule. But then there are other examples where a > commodity crowds out other competing commodities because it has a > lower value, even if the use value(s) it produces is/are in some ways > inferior to the one(s) it replaces. > > In general I would think that the use value(s) yielded by a commodity > are usually inseparable from the material shape of the commodity > itself, so that changes in value and use value normally occur > together. This is perhaps most clear in the case of services but I > would need to think about this more. How would the connection > between value and use value differ if at all for services compared to > material goods? Cheers, Paul Burkett > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST